Talk:Etymologiae/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 03:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This article looks incredibly interesting, and I will be happy to review it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * I think this article is of vital importance to wikipedia, being about one of the earliest efforts to undertake a project similar to our own. I am very thankful that someone has taken the time to bring it up to this level of quality. It should honestly be a FA, given its importance to our own sphere of interest as encyclopedists. So thanks for that! However the vitality means we can't skimp on quality, and there are some things that can definitely be improved:
 * Thank you. All the same, this is just a GA! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead is not an adequate summary of the article. It should include material about the structure of the contents of the encyclopedia - its books and general format. And also its manuscript and printing history.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The citation format is odd. The notes include both short and long references, but one book is separated out into the bibliography. I think the best solution is to take all long citations into the bibliography and use only short citations in the inline references - possibly excepting web-only references.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted. This is outside the GA criteria but I will try to find a sensible resolution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The 'one book' is the critical translation of Etymologiae by Barney and others into modern English, and it is cited many times, so it is placed in the Bibliography. I have used the sfn/Harvard templates to automate links between the short form references and the book, so like the other references it is now possible to navigate directly to online sources, where available. I hope you'll agree this elegantly solves the formatting question and provides the "quality" we all desire. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think it is odd not to move the long refs into the bibliography just because they are only cited once - I don't know any style guides that do that. But if this is how you like it then ok.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I missed a little bit of historical context surrounding its production - how and why was it made? What gave Isidore the idea or inspiration? Who paid for it? How long did it take? Who helped him? Why were in that period interested in encyclopedias like this? What was Spain like in this period, and was there anything special about the period and historical context that favored the production? That kind of thing, I think is missing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a Context section, which may begin to hint at your excellent questions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It definitely is an improvement. I think it still could do with some fleshing out as far as sources allow - the section is mostly about Isidore and not so much about the intellectual milieu of the time or about the function of encyclopedias. Why is Pliny the Elder not linked anywhere, and why is it not mentioned that his was the only other previous encyclopedia? Not something I will fail the article for, but something I think can be worked on for subsequent levels of improvement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikilinked Pliny, and mentioned the Natural History! And one or two other links too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This made me wonder if his citations to Pliny actually are to the Natural History? That would be interesting I think. Also do we know anything about whether Pliny's natural history was a direct inspiration?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I found another source stating that Solinus' work was also an encyclopedia, so maybe that claim is not true. Definitely I think the article could use some material on the Etymologiae's place in the history of encyclopedias.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pliny's was by far the largest (and most influential). The Etym.'s Books XII, XIII and XIV are all based largely on the Natural History. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. There is a book by Andrew Brown on the history of encyclopedias, it mentions Pliny and Wikipedia - but there is no snippet view so I can't see if it mentions the Etymologiae too. But it probably does.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The use of Pliny's NH is cited in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes this was more for something more general about the Etymologiae's place in the history of the encyclopedic genre. Here is a link to another work that may be useful.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, why not, said that Isidore fits into the classical tradition (i.e. not observational research), Brehaut is certainly right on that point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I liked that edit of yours. I looks to me as if Brehaut can provide some analytical content in general which I think will be needed for further improvements beyond the GA level.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the section on manuscript is too short, and not coherent enough as prose. I actually don't understand what it says - untill the reference to Codex Gigas - and even then it is not very informative overall, but seems to assume a lot of background knowledge. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Rewritten, new wikilinks and references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The section on "contents" is quite odd in the way that it is broken in to short sections on each book. Maybe a different organization might make sense, one without a header for each book?
 * Removed the headers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Much nicer in terms of readability and layout I think.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There are many paragraphs that have no citations throughout the article - but especially in the contents section. I understand why the contents it section might not feel necessary to cite, since it summarizes the actual book - but outside of that section all paragraphs need at least one citation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, contents and 'plot' sections are generally agreed to be self-citing. I've cited the rest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Great.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your improvements. I will be traveling the next three days and will probably not be able to review the changes until Friday, so you can take your time with the improvements, keep up the good work!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment

 * 1) Well-written:[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|check]]


 * 1) the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * 2) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * 3) Verifiable with no original research:[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|check]]
 * 4) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * 5) all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|check]]
 * 6) it contains no original research.
 * 7) Broad in its coverage:[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|check]]
 * 8) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * 9) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 10) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|check]]
 * 11) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|check]]
 * 12) Illustrated, if possible, by images:[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|check]]
 * 13) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * 14) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

I have concluded the review and am passing the article: I think that for the next stage (FA level) the article needs to give more of an analytical account of the Etymologiae, including their social, historical and literary context, and their place in the history of encyclopedias and knowledge, and it also needs I think to cite a little bit broader in the literature. It is however well within the GA criteria and deserves to be promoted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review, and for the suggestions for the future. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)